KISHORI PRASAD SAO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court. - Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the State and also learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2.

(2.) THIS application is directed against the order dated 19.4.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih affirming the order dated 14.1.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in Giridih (Town) P.S. Case No. 93 of 2007 whereby and whereunder prayer of the petitioners for discharging them from the accusation under Sections 420, 467, 468/34, of the Indian Penal Code was rejected.

(3.) IT is the case of the complainant/informant that the complainant. Sheikh Niyazuddin @ Santu, Sheikh Anwar @ Bittu, Bibi Fatima and Bibi Doli executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the petitioners on 5.6.2004 with respect to, their land pertaining to khata No.1. Plot Nos. 569, 570, 576, 584 and 586 measuring total area of 98 decimal situated at village Dhariadih. Police Station and District - Giridih. On the following day, i.e. 6.6.2004 an agreement was also executed stipulating therein that if the petitioners will execute sale -deed, they will inform about it to the informant/complainant so that consideration amount be fixed in their presence and the sale proceed be divided equally between the informant and the accused persons. In spite of that, petitioners in order to grab the aforesaid land executed sale -deeds in favour of their respective wives in the year 2006 showing consideration amount of Rs. 1,40,000/ - which was less than the market value and that the petitions never paid a single farthing to the informant. On such allegation, a case was registered as Giridih (Town) P.S. Case No. 93 of 2007 under Sections 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On submission of the charge -sheet, cognizance of the aforesaid offences was taken. Thereupon an application for discharge was filed before the Court below which was rejected. Against that order, Revision was preferred vide, Cr. Rev. No. 16 of 2009 which also got dismissed. Both the orders passed by the trial Court and also by the revisional Court are under challenge.